Executive Summary 

 page ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

ES-1 BACKGROUND 

The Los Angeles Union Station Passenger Terminal was constructed in 1939 to serve as the Los 

Angeles terminus for transcontinental passenger trains before the establishment of interstate 

highways and international airports. Access to Los Angeles Union Station (LAUS) is not 

provided directly via main line tracks, but rather via a set of lead tracks. The current operation of 

the station requires trains to pull into the terminal and then reverse their direction of travel after 

unloading or loading passengers. Many passengers transfer to other trains or other local 

transportation modes, leaving the station to reach their final destinations. Since all trains, 

whether starting/ending their trips or continuing beyond the station, must enter and exit through 

the same set of lead tracks to connect to the main line, they are subject to delays either at the 

station platforms or on the connecting tracks while awaiting a slot at the platforms or access back 

onto the main lines (see Figure ES-1 and Figure ES-2). 

As the focal point of passenger rail travel in Southern California, LAUS serves an average 159 

revenue passenger trains each weekday. The Southern California Regional Rail Authority 

(SCRRA) operates an average of 126 intra-city commuter trains1

 (Metrolink), while Amtrak 

operates 25 Pacific Surfliner regional inter-city trains between San Luis Obispo and San Diego, 

and 8 long-haul inter-city trains. The long-haul trains (Coast Starlight from Seattle, Southwest 

Chief from Chicago, and Sunset Limited from Orlando) end their interstate trips in Los Angeles 

and begin their return trips from here. In addition to being the station for national, inter-regional, 

and intraregional train trips, LAUS functions as a regional intermodal rail hub and transfer point. 

The demand for train travel to and from LAUS is expected to increase over the foreseeable 

future. The State Rail Plan2

 incorporates the results of Amtrak’s 20-year improvement program3

for California. This plan calls for adding 14 additional Pacific Surfliner trips by 2010. SCRRA 

has begun a systemwide planning effort to address long-term commuter needs. That planning is 

still in progress; therefore, official forecasts for service in 2010 and 2025 are not available. 

Working estimates4

 indicate that about 56 commuter trains would be added by 2010, and that 

about another 53 would be added between 2010 and 2025. Based on projected growth in 

regional passenger rail demand, this “stub-end” station configuration has been identified as a 

 

1

 Source: SCRRA, Operating Assumptions for Weekday Service, 6/24/02. (This number excludes Inland EmpireOrange County trains, which do not pass through Union Station). 

2

 California State Rail Plan, 2001-02 to 2010-11, January 2002, California Department of Transportation 

3

 California Passenger Rail System, 20-year Improvement Plan, March 2001, Amtrak 

4

 Source: SCRRA, Operating Assumptions for Weekday Service, 6/24/02. 
E

Source: HDR, Inc., 2003.

Figure ES-1: Union Station Vicinit
Executive Summary

page ES-3

Figure ES-2: Mission Junction Aerial Overview
Executive Summary 

 page ES-4

major constraint to providing increased service levels and reliability to meet the forecasted 

growth in inter-city and regional train traffic. 

Railroad passengers arriving at LAUS can transfer to two transit modes: subway/light rail and 

buses. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) operates a subway 

system (heavy-rail train) approximately 40 feet (12 meters) below ground level at LAUS. 

Currently, about 280 scheduled MTA Red Line movements occur daily at LAUS. The subway 

runs through the downtown area and then westward to as far west as the mid-Wilshire area, with a 

branch to North Hollywood. The subway provides a connection to MTA’s Blue Line light-rail 

transit (LRT) service, which begins in a subway in the southern part of downtown Los Angeles and 

then transitions to street-level service to Long Beach. The MTA opened the Pasadena Gold Line 

LRT project in Summer 2003. The Pasadena Gold Line terminates at the old LAUS tracks 1 and 2, 

just south of LAUS Platform No. 2. The Gold Line includes a new platform that matches the floor 

height of LRT vehicles. MTA is planning an extension of the LRT service to East Los Angeles 

that would begin at the new LRT platform, pass over U.S. 101, and then transition to an at-grade 

alignment on Alameda Street. It should be noted that the Eastside LRT bridge over U.S. 101 is not 

designed to accommodate the weight of Metrolink and Amtrak trains. 

LAUS is connected to the Patsouras Transit Center bus facility at the adjoining MTA 

headquarters building. The Transit Center serves regional bus routes operated by: 

• Antelope Valley Transit (1 route) 

• City of Los Angeles Commuter Express (1 route) 

• Foothill Transit (10 routes) 

• Gardena Municipal Bus Line (1 route) 

• Montebello Municipal Bus Lines (5 routes) 

• MTA (12 routes) 

• Santa Clarita Transit (1 route) 

• Santa Monica Municipal Bus Lines (Big Blue Bus) (1 route) 

• Torrance Transit (2 routes). 

In addition, LAUS and the Patsouras Transit Center are served by two local shuttle routes (LA 

DASH) operated by the City of Los Angeles. Amtrak bus service, which provides linkage to the 

Amtrak line in California’s Central Valley (Bakersfield), operates from LAUS. Rental car 

service and taxis are also available at LAUS. 

ES-2 PURPOSE AND NEED 

The proposedLos Angeles Union Station Run-Through Tracks Project proposed by Caltrans

would address three basic needs identified through an evaluation of transportation conditions, 

problems, and issues: 

• Improve near-term operational efficiencies and scheduling reliability for trains using LAUS 

by reducing the constraint on train movements that results from stub-end operation. Current 

design of the station requires that all trains must enter and exit through the same set of lead 
Executive Summary 

 page ES-5

tracks to connect to the main lines, and are thus subject to delays either at the station 

platforms or on the connecting lead tracks while awaiting a slot at the platforms or access 

onto the main lines. 

• Improve pedestrian access and functionality of the passenger platforms, while also improving 

connectivity with other transit services at LAUS (LRT, subway, and busses.) Pedestrian 

movements through LAUS are forecasted by MTA to increase from the current 40,000 

persons per weekday to about 60,000 persons daily over the next decade. Improvements to 

railroad platforms would bring those that have not been previously renovated into ADA 

compliance. Converting Platforms Nos. 7 and 8, which were previously de-commissioned, 

back to utilization for passengers would provide a long-term increase in platform capacity at 

the station. The increase in platform capacity would serve forecasted growth to 2025 and 

beyond. 

• Increase the capacity of LAUS to accommodate planned growth of Amtrak and SCRRA train 

services. The number of trains using the station is forecasted to grow from 159 today to 222 

by 2010 and 278 by 2025. Initial analysis indicated that acceptable levels of service 

reliability could be provided by the current facilities only through about 2010. After that 

date, as more trains are added, scheduling reliability would begin to deteriorate, especially 

during peak hours. This deterioration would arise as more and more trains attempt to move 

into and out of LAUS within constrained time periods. If trains were delayed, their planned 

“slots” for arrival/unloading/loading/departure could be lost or interfere with the slots of 

other trains. Fewer opportunities for schedule recovery would become available when the 

overall capacity of LAUS is approached. 

It should be noted that LAUS currently includes a mail handling facility on its eastern edge. 

Mail is transferred between trains and tractor-trailers that move mail to and from local postal 

facilities. This transfer operation uses the spaces formerly occupied by Platform Nos. 7 and 8, 

and is in operation around the clock, 7 days a week. The space now used on Platform Nos. 7 and 

8 for mail operations is needed to meet the forecasted demands for passenger trains. Previous 

planning by Amtrak identified a suitable location for the transfers to occur within Amtrak’s 

Redondo Junction property. 

ES-3 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STATUS 

ES-3.1 Development of Alternatives 

The issue of improving operations at Union Station was the subject of a Project Study Report 

(PSR) prepared for the California Department of Transportation (the Department) in June 2000. 

The PSR is a basic feasibility study to determine the initial concepts for transportation 

improvements and order of magnitude costs. The PSR identified run-through tracks as the basic 

solution to resolving the constraints of stub-end operations at LAUS. The concept of the runthrough tracks would be to extend two tracks southward from Union Station on an aerial 

structure and provide a new connection into the BNSF SCRRA main line on the west side of the 

Los Angeles River. This would allow some of the trains that use the station to avoid the pull 

in/back out situation. The current operation of the station requires trains to pull into the terminal 
Executive Summary 

 page ES-6

and then reverse their direction of travel after unloading or loading passengers. Overall, the runthrough tracks structure would form an S-curve, connecting at its north/west end to track 

platforms at Union Station and at its south/east end to some point along the BNSF main line in 

the vicinity of the 1st Street Bridge (see Figure ES-3). 

In 2002, the Department and the Federal Railroad Administration initiated conceptual 

engineering and environmental analysis for run-through tracks in cooperation with Amtrak. An 

Alternatives Analysis (AA) process was begun to develop and screen a full range of potential 

alignments. The particular alignment and touchdown point on the main line are the focus of key 

decisions to be made in the AA. Three rounds of screening occurred. In the Initial Screening 

stage, 48 potential alignments were identified between U.S. 101 on the north and 4th Street on the 

south, and to the west of Alameda Street. Using engineering and environmental screening 

criteria, the 48 potential alignments were reduced to 7 conceptual alignments that appeared most 

reasonable. These seven alignments, all located north of 1St Street, were further screened using 

more refined engineering and environmental criteria. Since some of the conceptual alignments 

were very similar, they were collapsed through a combining process into four alternatives. A 

Second Screening was conducted for the four alternatives. Three of the alternative alignments 

were not desirable because they would entail numerous property acquisitions, including 

important public agency properties where relocation would be difficult, or a site with special 

manufacturing where relocation would be expensive. The initial result of the Second Screening 

was the identification of Alternative A as a good combination of high engineering values and 

low environmental impacts that should be assessed in detail in an environmental document. 

Upon reviewing the anticipated impacts for Alternative A at the end of the Second Screening, the 

question arose as to whether a variation(s) of that alignment could be developed that captured its 

benefits, while avoiding the conflicts with the planned Commercial Street widening and 

minimizing right-of-way impacts to businesses along the Alternative A alignment. To create an 

alignment that would be further north than Alternative A, it became clear that the concept of 

crossing the freeway with a single structure that accommodated two tracks (consolidated from 

four tracks adjacent to Platform Nos. 2 and 3) was constraining curvatures and grades in the 

vicinity of Commercial Street. A concept to carry four tracks across the freeway would allow 

the alignment to shift closer to U.S. 101. Four variations of this concept were developed and 

analyzed in a Supplemental Screening process, resulting in the identification of Alternative A-1 

as the second alternative to be addressed in this environmental document. Additional 

information on the development and screening process is provided in Chapter 2. 

A bridge type evaluation was performed to evaluate and identify the optimum type of structure 

for the various segments of the elevated run-through tracks structure. The bridge type 

recommended by the project engineering team for crossing over U.S. 101 is a steel deck-plate 

girder (DPG). The recommended bridge type for the trestle segment (from south of U.S. 101 to 

the BNSF mainline touchdown point) is a combination of precast/prestressed concrete box girder 

(PC/PS), steel deck-plate girder, steel through-plate girder (TPG), and mechanically stabilized 

earth (MSE) structures, depending on the alignment of the alternative. 

The two identified alternatives, Alternative A and Alternative A-1, in conjunction with the NoBuild Alternative, are the candidate alternatives for the proposed Run-Through Tracks Project 

and are the subject of this environmental document. The alignments of Alternative A and A-1 

are shown on Figure ES-4 and Figure ES-5, respectively. 
Executive Summary 

 page ES-7

Subsequent to the issuance of the Draft EIR/EIS for review and comment, a large parcel within 

the Alternative A alignment that was vacant at the time the draft document was prepared was 

acquired and is the site of a new two-story warehouse and office building. This new construction 

renders Alternative A a much less feasible alternative, since it would require acquisition and 

displacement of a new business. Due to this change,Alternative A-1 is the locally preferred 

alternative.

For the purposes of this Final EIR/EIS, text boxes have been added in the Executive Summary 

and in Chapter 2 and elsewhere to highlight this change in circumstances. However, references 

to Alternative A have not been removed throughout the document.
Executive Summary

page ES-8

Figure ES-3: Aerial Alignment Alternatives Across U.S. 101

Source: Myra L. Frank & Associates, Inc., 2003.
Executive Summary

page ES- 9

Source: Imagecat, Inc., 2003; Myra L. Frank & Associates, Inc., 2003.

Figure ES-4: Overall Alignment of Alternative A
Executive Summary

page ES-10

Source: Imagecat, Inc., 2003; Myra L. Frank & Associates, Inc., 2003.

Figure ES-5: Overall Alignment of Alternative A-1
Executive Summary 

 page ES-11

ES-3.2 No-Build Alternative 

Under the No-Build Alternative, the existing “stub-end” rail configuration at the LAUS would 

remain. The No-Build Alternative includes the SCRRA’s recently completed 5th Lead Project 

that provides additional capacity for movement through the throat area of LAUS by extending 

the existing lead No. 1, but makes no changes to other parts or functions of the system. The NoBuild Alternative also includes the following transportation projects in the vicinity: 

• U.S. 101 freeway widening and ramp reconfiguration project (by the Department) 

• Eastside Light-Rail Extension Project (by Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation 

Authority), including both a revenue alignment and service leads 

• Pasadena Gold Line Light-Rail Extension Project (by Los Angeles Metropolitan 

Transportation Authority) 

• Widening of 1st Street Bridge Project (by City of Los Angeles) 

• Commercial Street Widening Project, between Alameda and Center Streets (by Los Angeles 

Department of Transportation) 

• Union Station traffic circulation improvements (by Catellus) 

• High-Speed Rail conceptual terminal locations for Union Station (by California High-Speed 

Rail Authority) 

• MAGLEV conceptual terminal location for Union Station (by Southern California 

Association of Governments) 

• Existing city streets. 

ES-3.3 Alternative A 

Alternative A would extend some bi-directional running tracks from the existing stub-end track 

configuration at LAUS to the south and east to provide “run-through” capabilities for four of the 

ten stub-end tracks at LAUS. Tracks 3 to 6 would extend south of Union Station on the bridge 

over the El Monte Busway and U.S. 101 and then transition to two tracks at the freeway median. 

The width of the structure at the edge of LAUS would be approximately 70 feet (21 meters) to 

accommodate the four run-through tracks, tapering to approximately 45 feet (14 meters) as the 

four tracks merge into two tracks on the south side of U.S. 101. The column-supported trestle 

structure would begin north of Commercial Street (near Hewitt Street), extend eastward between 

Commercial Street and Ducommun Street (to approximately Center Street). The trestle alignment 

Subsequent to the circulation of the Draft EIR/EIS, a large parcel within the Alternative A

alignment that was vacant at the time the draft document was prepared was acquired and is the

site of a new two-story warehouse and office building. This new construction renders

Alternative A a much less feasible alternative, since it would require acquisition and

displacement of a new business. Due to this change, Alternative A-1 is the locally preferred

alternative has more significant impacts than Alternative A-1.
Executive Summary 

 page ES-12

runs south of Commercial Street, and would pass above a commercial building. At Center 

Street, it would transition southward as it crosses over the Red Line Tunnel structure and 

Eastside LRT maintenance lead, and descend to connect with the SCRRA main tracks at the 

BNSF yard before 1st Street (north of the 1st Street Bridge) along the west bank of Los Angeles 

River. The trestle would provide 16.5 feet of clearance over city streets. Figure ES-4 shows the 

overall alignment of Alternative A. 

ES-3.4 Alternative A-1 

Alternative A-1 would include a bridge over U.S. 101 that uniformly accommodates four runthrough tracks. In doing this, the bridge structure over U.S. 101 would be able to be designed 

with greater curvature, which in turn allows the east-west alignment to be shifted northward 

(compared to Alternative A). 

After crossing U.S. 101, the four tracks would transition to two, and the trestle would extend east 

along the north side of Commercial Street, then turn south such that the tracks would descend to 

grade and reconnect to the existing SCRRA mainline tracks (north of 1st Street) along the west 

bank of Los Angeles River. Figure ES-5 shows the overall alignment of Alternative A-1. Figure 

ES-3 shows the alignments of Alternative A and A-1. Alternative A-1 differs from Alternative A 

primarily in the curvature of the bridge crossing over U.S. 101 (the transition from four tracks to 

two tracks occurs at N. Vignes Street, rather than in the middle of U.S.101 for Alternative A) and 

in the location of the east-west structure south of U.S. 101. Alternative A-1 would run north of 

Commercial Street until reaching Center Street, whereas Alternative A would be south of 

Commercial. Alternative A-1 would cross Center Street at a skew angle, requiring a realignment 

of Center Street and demolition of a building (or portion of a building) at the northeast corner of 

Center and Commercial. 

Subsequent to the Draft EIR/EIS, Alternative A-1 was identified as the preferred alternative. 

Overall, Alternative A-1 has fewer environmental impacts than Alternative A, especially with 

regard to acquisitions and displacements. As noted above, the Alternative A alignment now 

includes a new two-story warehouse/office building that was not present when the Draft EIR/EIS 

was prepared. Due to this change, Alternative A has more significant impacts than Alternative A-1.

ES-3.4.1 Changes to LAUS 

Both alternatives would include changes within the Union Station complex. See Figure ES-6 for 

an aerial view of the portions of Union Station where platforms and tracks would be changed. 

Improvements would consist of various track, platform, service road, and station improvements, 

including the following: 

• As part of either build alternative, a new Amtrak Mail Transfer Facility would be built at 

Redondo Junction, an Amtrak property just north of Washington Boulevard and east of 16th

Street to replace the current facility at LAUS. No other area of LAUS can accommodate the 

mail functions. 
E

Figure ES-6: Platform and Track Change

Source: HDR, Inc, 2003.
Executive Summary 

 page ES-14

• Modifications to switches and tracks in the “throat” area where trains enter/exit LAUS to 

provide linkages to new LAUS platforms 

• Elimination of the existing Mail Facility along the northeastern side of the LAUS to 

accommodate the new platforms. The mail facility would be relocated to other Amtrak 

property at Redondo Junction. 

• Construction of new platforms (Platform Nos. 7 and 8) and reintroduction of tracks (Tracks 

13, 14, 15, and 16) at the east end of the station. The new platforms and tracks would 

provide replacement capacity for when Platform Nos. 2 and 3 and Tracks 3 through 6 are 

under modification. 

• Raising the elevation of existing platforms (Platform Nos. 2 and 3) and the associated tracks 

(Tracks 3, 4, 5, and 6) to match the elevation of a new railroad bridge structure over the El 

Monte Busway and U.S. 101 for the run-through tracks. The platforms and tracks must be 

elevated by about 5 feet at their south ends in order to provide a minimum clearance for the 

railroad bridge over the El Monte Busway of 16.5 feet. 

• Reconstruction of portions of the passenger tunnel and some ramps to accommodate the new 

and reconstructed platforms. 

• Reconstruction of the service/baggage-handling road at the south end of the platforms. The 

service road would be depressed by up to 15 feet (4.6 meters) from the current grade to provide 

adequate clearance beneath the new run-through tracks bridge structure for baggage vehicles 

and operations. The new depressed service road would also include a baggage car access road. 

Once the baggage road returns to grade, it would provide access to the platforms. 

• Construction and reconstruction of accessory facilities such as retaining walls, switches, 

turnout tracks, etc. 

In September 2004, Amtrak announced that it intended to exit the mail and express business in 

order to concentrate on its core business of transporting passengers. As a result, the issue of 

whether Amtrak would need to build a new Amtrak Mail Transfer Facility at Redondo Junction 

as a result of the elimination of the existing Mail Facility along the northeastern side of the 

LAUS to accommodate new platforms is unclear at this time. In the interest of full disclosure, 

the Final EIR/EIS retains the discussions and analysis of the impacts of the construction of a new 

facility should a decision be made in the future that a new facility at Redondo Junction is 

necessary or appropriate. 

ES-3.5 Environmental Process 

FRA and the Department initiated the environmental process for the proposed Los Angeles 

Union Station Run-Through Tracks Project in June 2002. A joint CEQA/NEPA document, an 

Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS), is being prepared for 

the proposed project. The FRA is the lead agency for the evaluation of environmental impacts 

under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) (42 USC 4321, et 

seq.). FRA is overseeing the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

components of the joint EIR/EIS document. The Notice of Intent (NOI) to the prepare this EIS 

was published in the Federal Register on Wednesday, June 18, 2002. (FR 41749, Vol. 67, No. 

118.) The NEPA scoping period closed on July 29, 2002. The NOI announced the FRA’s intent 

to prepare an EIS in accordance with NEPA, and provided formal notice of the opportunity to 
Executive Summary 

 page ES-15

comment in writing and/or at the public scoping meetings. The NOI also included information 

on the project background, study area, potential alternatives, probable effects to be studied, FRA 

procedures, relevant scoping meeting information and contact information. 

The Department is preparing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) SCH No. 2002061071, for 

the proposed project to address the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act 

(CEQA) (California Public Resources Code, Section 21000, et seq.). Environmental staff from 

The Department’s District 7 (Los Angeles) office is overseeing the environmental process on 

behalf of the Department. The Department’s Rail Program staff (in Sacramento) is overseeing 

the development and analysis of proposed physical and operational changes. 

A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was mailed by 

District 7 on June 18, 2002, to the State Clearinghouse and to a project-specific mailing list. The 

NOP announced the Department’s intent to prepare an EIR pursuant to CEQA. Like the NOI, it 

provided formal notice of the opportunity to comment in writing and/or at the public scoping 

meetings and commenced the CEQA scoping period. The NOI also advised California agencies 

of their obligation to comment on the proposed project within 30 days. The CEQA scoping 

period closed on July 22, 2002, thirty days after the official posting date. The NOP also included 

information on the proposed project, alternatives, anticipated effects, scoping meeting 

information, and contact information. The NOP included a preview of anticipated project 

impacts via a CEQA Initial Study Checklist (IS). 

In addition to the NOP mailings, a one-page Scoping notice was also prepared which 

summarized the proposed project and announced the time and location of the public Scoping 

meeting on June 24, 2002. The Scoping notice was mailed to 1508 businesses, churches, 

organizations, property owners, and residents within the study area on June 13, 2002. 

Five newspaper notices were placed announcing the Scoping meetings. All notices included the 

information about the scoping meetings, a project map, and contact information. The 

newspapers were chosen for their circulation and audience. For example, the Los Angeles 

Downtown News is distributed throughout central and downtown Los Angeles. The Rafu Shimpo 

newspaper serves the cultural Japanese, and the community of Little Tokyo. The Chinese Daily 

News serves the cultural Chinese population and Chinatown. La Opinion newspaper is circulated 

to the Latino audience of Los Angeles. 

Additionally, the notices were published in four different languages, (i.e., English, Japanese, 

Spanish and Mandarin Chinese.) An English language notice was placed in the Los Angeles 

Downtown News, on June 17, 2002. Two notices, one in English, the other in Japanese, were 

placed in the Rafu Shimpo newspaper in the June 15, 2002, edition. In the Chinese Daily News, a 

Mandarin Chinese language notice was placed and ran in the June 13, 2002, edition. On June 15, 

2002, a Spanish language notice was run in La Opinion. 

The two Scoping meetings were held in an open house format with information stations and 

illustrated display boards. Members representing District 7, the Federal Railroad Administration, 

and the project consultant team staffed the meetings. One meeting, held on June 24, 2002, from 

5 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. at the Union Station room in the headquarters of the Los Angeles County 

Metropolitan Transportation Authority, was held for the general public. Twenty-one members of 

the public attended the meeting. At the public Scoping meeting, Chinese, Japanese and Spanish 
Executive Summary 

 page ES-16

interpreters were present for non-English speaking members of the public. Public comment 

forms, two board displays, and project fact sheets were also provided in four languages: English, 

Spanish, Japanese, and Chinese. The other meeting, held on June 25, 2002, from 9 a.m. to 11 

a.m. at the offices of Myra L. Frank and Associates, Inc., 811 W. 7th Street, was held for public 

agencies. A total of nine members of public agencies attended the meeting. Both meetings 

opened with the same Powerpoint presentation and subsequent question and answer period. 

Additionally, Scoping meetings were also held individually with several stakeholders. The 

stakeholders were the Los Angeles Conservancy, Friedman Bag Company, Los Angeles County 

Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Los Angeles County Supervisorial District 1, City of Los 

Angeles, Mayor Hahn’s Office, City of Los Angeles Council Districts 9 and 14, City of Los 

Angeles Board of Public Works, City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, City of 

Los Angeles Department of Transportation, and City of Los Angeles Department of Planning. 

The various City departments are now involved in ongoing coordination with the project team. 

The NEPA public review period began with the publication of the Notice of Availability in the 

Federal Register on Friday, September 10, 2004. The CEQA public review period began with 

the posting of the Notice of Availability at the Los Angeles County Clerk on September 3, 2004, 

and the receipt of the Notice of Completion at the State of California, Governor’s Office of 

Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, on Friday, September 9, 2004. 

Newspaper advertisements noticing the public hearing and the availability of the Draft EIR/EIS 

were published on two separate occasions in the following five newspapers: Downtown News, Rafu 

Shimpo, Chinese Daily News, La Opinion, Los Angeles Times. The first printing occurred within 

all five of the above newspapers between the dates of September 6 and 10, 2004. It announced the 

proposed project and the beginning of the public review period. The second printing occurred 

between October 4 and 8, 2004. It reminded the public of the upcoming public hearing.

Copies of the document were mailed to responsible and trustee agencies and to those who had 

previously requested a copy of the document. An electronic copy of the document was placed on 

the project website, www.runthroughtracks.org, and physical copies of the document were placed in 

the following locations: Benjamin Franklin Library; Chinatown Branch Library; Los Angeles Public 

Library, Science Department; Little Tokyo Library; California Department of Transportation. 

Any property owner who would be potentially affected by the proposed project was notified of this 

via posting of the Notice of Availability at the Los Angeles County Clerk, the newspaper 

advertising, and the mailing distribution of the Draft EIR/EIS. Personal delivery of the document 

(by the public outreach consultant) to any businesses that would directly be affected by the 

proposed project occurred on October 6, 2004. Specifically, four complete sets of documents were 

hand delivered to the Los Angeles Police Department, Property Division; Viertel’s Automotive 

Service; Mrs. Friday’s-Fishking Processors, Inc.; and B &Z Investments, Inc. 

All persons on the project mailing list received Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR/EIS. 

The project mailing list was developed over the course of the project and includes persons 

notified of or responding to scoping, attendees at public information meetings, and those who 

asked to be added to the mailing list via the project website or other correspondence. (See 

Table 7-1, Draft EIR/EIS Distribution List, and Table 27-2, Draft EIR/EIS Notice of 

Availability Distribution List.) 
Executive Summary 

 page ES-17

Comments on the Draft EIR/EIS were accepted via the project website; in writing via fax, email 

or mail; by phone; and at the public hearing (oral and written). The FRA and the Department 

held a public hearing near the project location. It was on October 13, 2004, from 4 p.m. to 8 

p.m. at the MTA Building, 1 Gateway Plaza, 3rd Floor Conference Room, Los Angeles, CA, 

90012. The close of the comment periods was close of business on October 25, 2004.

Comments were submitted in the following manner: in writing, mailed to the persons named 

below; in writing at the public hearing; to a court reporter at the public hearing; via email at the 

project Internet website, www.runthroughtracks.org. 

Comments were addressed to either (or both) of the following persons: David Valenstein, Federal 

Railroad Administration, Gary Iverson, California Department of Transportation District 7.

All comments received were considered, and responses to substantive comments were addressed

in Chapter 12, Comments and Responses. Chapter 11, Clarifications and Modifications, 

indicates where corresponding edits or corrections to the Draft EIR/EIS were made in response 

to the comments received. 

ES-3.6 Next Steps

The Final EIR/EIS will be distributed to those agencies, organizations, and persons who 

commented substantively on the Draft EIR/EIS, as well as to any persons requesting a copy. 

Please see Table 7-3 for a full distribution list. The Notice of Availability will be distributed to 

any responsible and trustee agencies and persons, businesses, and organizations that have an 

interest or have expressed an interest in the proposed project. Please see Table 7-4 for the Notice 

of Availability distribution list.

Prior to approving the proposed project, the Department must certify that it has reviewed and 

considered the information contained in the FEIR and that the FEIR and a Notice of 

Determination will be filed in accordance with CEQA, NEPA, and department requirements. 

Additionally, the information contained in the FEIR reflects the independent judgment of the 

agencies. When the FRA completes its approval process, a Record of Decision will be filed in 

accordance with NEPA procedures. 

Pursuant to CEQA, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting program will be developed to ensure 

the implementation of the adopted mitigation measures; those measures shall be fully 

enforceable. The Department will adopt the mitigation monitoring program in conjunction with 

the findings required under CEQA at the time it considers certification of the FEIR and decides 

whether to approve the project. 

Although construction funding is not currently available, construction could begin if significant 

funds are identified.
Executive Summary 

 page ES-18

ES-4 OVERVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

ES-4.1 Summary of Impacts 

The majority of environmental areas analyzed were found to be Not Adverse or Less than 

Adverse under NEPA and to have No Impact or Less than Significant Impact under CEQA, 

when compliance with regulatory compliance is considered. Applicable regulatory compliance, 

which includes permits and other standard practices that would be legally necessary as part of 

any major construction project, is listed in Tables ES-1. These areas require no mitigation 

measures beyond regulatory compliance: 

 Acquisitions and Displacements 

 Biological Resources (including Wetlands) 

 Energy 

 Executive Orders 

 Hazardous Materials 

 Land Use/Planning 

 Railroad Operations 

 Safety/Security 

 Population, Housing & Employment 

 Utility Disruptions 

 Water and Water Quality (including Floodplains). 

The following environmental areas were found to be Potentially Adverse or Adverse under 

NEPA and/or to have Potentially Significant or Significant Impacts under CEQA, and to require 

mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less than adverse/less than significant level. Proposed 

mitigation measures are listed in Table ES-1. 

 Air Quality 

 Community Services 

 Cultural Resources 

 Geologic/Seismic 

 Noise 

 Traffic (construction-period only). 

Under NEPA, there are no environmental areas for which there would be remainder adverse 

impacts after proposed mitigation measures are considered. 

Under CEQA, there would be remainder significant air quality impacts. There would be no 

remainder impacts for any other environmental areas. 

ES-4.2 Summary Table 

Table ES-1 summarizes the environmental impacts associated with Alternatives A and A-1. The 

table shows the initial level of impact under NEPA and CEQA; followed by citations of impact 

reductions that would occur either through compliance with environmental regulations or other 

mitigation measures; and the resulting level of impact when compliance or mitigation is considered. 
Executive Summary 

 page ES-19

For impacts that are assessed under NEPA, the level of impact is expressed in terms of whether it 

is not adverse, potentially adverse, or adverse. NEPA assessments often do not have specific 

impact criteria and documents typically do not specify whether impacts are significant. CEQA, 

on the other hand, requires that determinations of significance be made. Accordingly for impacts 

assessed under CEQA the level of impact is expressed in terms of whether it is not significant (or 

no effect), less than significant, potentially significant, or significant when compared to specific 

criteria of significance. 

Subsequent to the Draft EIR/EIS, Alternative A-1 was identified as the locallypreferred alternative. 

Overall, Alternative A-1 has fewer environmental impacts than Alternative A, especially with regard 

to acquisitions and displacements. As noted above, the Alternative A alignment now includes a new 

two-story warehouse/office building that was not present when the Draft EIR/EIS was prepared. 

Due to this change, Alternative A has more significant impacts than Alternative A-1.

ES-5 AGENCY COORDINATION 

Agency consultation and participation has been on-going throughout the life of the project. 

Monthly Project Development Team (PDT) meetings were held at Amtrak offices in Los 

Angeles at Union Station from the beginning of the screening process, and these meetings are 

scheduled to continue throughout the life of the proposed project. The PDT meetings were 

attended by Amtrak; Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF); State of California, Department of 

Transportation; Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA); Los Angeles County 

Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA); City of Los Angeles, Department of 

Transportation and the project consultant team 

The proposed project was presented to responsible federal agencies with jurisdiction over and or 

interest in the proposed project through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and 

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) scoping process. In addition to issuance of the 

Notice of Intent by FRA in the Federal Register of June 18, 2002, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) 

was mailed to federal, state and local agencies by the Department on June 18. The NOP 

included an Initial Checklist that identified anticipated project impacts. Nine agencies attended a 

Scoping meeting on June 25, 2002. Additionally, Scoping meetings were also held individually 

with several stakeholders. The stakeholders were the Los Angeles Conservancy, Friedman Bag 

Company, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Los Angeles County 

Supervisorial District 1, City of Los Angeles, Mayor Hahn’s Office, City of Los Angeles 

Council Districts 9 and 14, City of Los Angeles Board of Public Works, City of Los Angeles 

Department of Water and Power, City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation, and City of 

Los Angeles Department of Planning. The various City departments are now involved in 

ongoing coordination with the project team. 

Simultaneously, the Section 106 process has been occurringprogressing. Please see the 

discussion in Chapter 3-5, Cultural Resources, and Chapter 5, Agency Coordination. In 

summary, the California SHPO sent a letter concurring with FRA’s findings of National Register 

eligibility and effects on historic and architectural resources but had comments on the 

information provided on two archaeological resources. The letter was included in Appendix B of 

the Draft EIR/EIS. A reply letter was sent to the California SHPO on January 13, 2005, by 

Caltrans on behalf of FRA. It can be found in Chapter 11, Clarifications and Modifications. 
Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 

Actions to Reduce Impacts 

Potential Environmental 

Impacts for Build Alternatives 

Significance 

Determination Regulatory Requirements Proposed Mitigation Meas

Section 3-1 – Acquisitions and Displacements Alternative A: Full acquisition of 4 parcels; 3 aerial easements Note that subsequent to the Draft EIR/EIS, one of the parcels on the Alternative A alignment now includes a new two-story warehouse/office building 

Potentially Adverse (NEPA) Potentially Significant (CEQA) 

Purchases would be at fair market value. Relocation assistance would be provided in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Properties Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, section 6018 of the Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Guidelines (California Code of Regulations), and the provisions of the California Relocation Act (Government Code sections 7260-7277). 

No additional mitigation measures req

Alternative A-1: Full acquisition of 3 parcels; 1 aerial easement

Potentially Adverse (NEPA) Potentially Significant (CEQA) 

See regulatory requirement above. No additional mitigation measures req
Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 

Actions to Reduce Impacts 

Potential Environmental 

Impacts for Build Alternatives 

Significance 

Determination Regulatory Requirements Proposed Mitigation Meas

Section 3-2 – Air Quality Construction-Period Impacts for Both Build Alternatives 

Not Adverse (NEPA) Significant (CEQA) 

No regulatory requirements for NEPA. Compliance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 for control of fugitive dust 

To address nitrous oxide pollution, the measures are proposed: AQ-1: Equipment shall not be allowed more 10 minutes, AQ-2: Contractors shall be encourageequipment AQ-3: Contractors shall be encouragediesel. To address particulate pollution, the fomeasure is proposed: AQ-4: In addition to compliance with S403, contractors shall be encouraged tequipment AQ-5: · Streets will be swept at the e

if visible soil is carried onto streets.

AQ-6: Wheel washers will be installe

vehicles enter and exit construction sitwheels will be washed down by hoses off the site.

AQ-7· Non-toxic soil stabilizers will b

inactive constructive areas.
Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 

Actions to Reduce Impacts 

Potential Environmental 

Impacts for Build Alternatives 

Significance 

Determination Regulatory Requirements Proposed Mitigation Meas

Long-Term Impacts for Both Build Alternatives Under CEQA-Carbon Monoxide (CO) and Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) emissions exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) daily thresholds. 

Not Adverse (NEPA) Significant (CEQA) 

Project meets NEPA-required Transportation Conformity 

None required under NEPA. None proposed under CEQA- All propemission reductions for railroad engineincorporated. Project implementation overall CO and ROG levels compared 

Section 3-3 – Biological Resources Habitats and Wetlands Both Build Alternatives: No long 

term adverse (significant) impacts to native plant communities, candidate and sensitive plants and wildlife, wetlands or riparian habitats would result from construction or operation of the proposed project because none are present within the project area. 

Not Adverse (NEPA) Not Significant (CEQA) 

Although no impacts to biological resources were identified, the proposed project would comply with the requirements of Section 402 of the Clean Water Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to ensure that biological species and habitats are protected. 

No additional mitigation measures reqproject would voluntarily comply the CTree Division policy to the extent posswould minimize any impacts resulting or displacement of any non-native parduring construction. 

Nesting Birds Both Build Alternatives: Potential 

construction-period impacts to nesting birds if present in trees along streets that would need to be removed. 

Potentially Adverse (NEPA) Potentially Significant (CEQA) 

Compliance with Migratory Bird Treaty Act (if construction involves removal of migratory bird nests during the breeding season) to assure protection to biological species. 

Although no impacts to biological resoidentified, if construction occurs during season, a qualified biologist will investto be removed to ascertain whether bipresent. If nests are present, they will possible, or work will need to be manaarea to avoid disturbing nesting birds. 
Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 

Actions to Reduce Impacts 

Potential Environmental 

Impacts for Build Alternatives 

Significance 

Determination Regulatory Requirements Proposed Mitigation Meas

Section 3-4 – Community Facilities and ServicesPolice Protection Services Both Build Alternatives: No longterm impacts. Potential impacts to police protection services during construction from traffic and access disruptions on emergency response time. 

Potentially Adverse (NEPA) Potentially Significant (CEQA) 

No regulatory requirements. Although no adverse (no significant) im

police protection services are anticipatfollowing measure shall be implementean overall Traffic Management Programinimize potential construction impactPS-1 Prior to initiation of any constructhat may interfere with emergency servaccess, the construction contractor shcoordinate with the Amtrak Police, LASto ensure disruption is minimized and alternative routes for emergency vehic

Fire Protection Services Both Build Alternatives: No longterm impacts. Potential impacts to fire protection services during construction from traffic and access disruptions on emergency response time. 

Potentially Adverse (NEPA) Potentially Significant (CEQA) 

No regulatory requirements. Although no adverse (no significant) im

protection services are anticipated, the 

measure shall be implemented as part Traffic Management Program (TMP) to potential construction impacts: FPS-1 Project engineers shall consult Engineer and the City of Los Angeles Department to ensure adequate accesDepartment vehicles and equipment. FPS-2 The proposed project shall comapplicable codes and regulations admthe State Architect and State Fire MarsFPS-3 Prior to initiation of any construthat may interfere with emergency servaccess, the construction contractor shcoordinate with the City of Los AngeleDepartment to ensure disruption is minidentify alternative routes for emergen
Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 

Actions to Reduce Impacts 

Potential Environmental 

Impacts for Build Alternatives 

Significance 

Determination Regulatory Requirements Proposed Mitigation Meas

Pedestrian/Vehicular Access Both Build Alternatives: No longterm impacts. Potential impacts during construction to pedestrian and vehicular access to community facilities during construction. 

Not Adverse (NEPA) Potentially Significant (CEQA) 

No regulatory requirements. Please see Section 3-3, Air Quality, an

12, Noise, for measures to mitigate coquality and noise impacts. Temporary access changes are not adNEPA. Although no significant impacts (CEQApedestrian or vehicular access are antfollowing measure shall be implementean overall Traffic Management Programinimize potential construction period SPS-1 Contractors shall ensure that sconvenient pedestrian routes to schoomaintained during construction. SPS-2 Entrances to the LAUSD mainwould not be blocked during construct
Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 

Actions to Reduce Impacts 

Potential Environmental 

Impacts for Build Alternatives 

Significance 

Determination Regulatory Requirements Proposed Mitigation Meas

Section 3-5 – Cultural ResourcesArchaeological Resources Both Build Alternatives: Potentially significant impacts to two known archeological resources. Potentially significant impacts during construction if unanticipated resources are encountered at Union Station, in U.S. 101 ROW, or other project locations. 

Potentially Adverse (NEPA) Potentially Significant (CEQA) 

The project will be implemented in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act and the Native American Graves Protection Act; the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code, Section 21084.1), including, Section 15064.5 of the CEQA guidelines; Section 7050.5 of the State Health Code. 

The following mitigation measures shall aCA-LAN-1575/H and site AE-UPT-01 anunanticipated discoveries of archeologicaThese mitigation measures will also be ina Memorandum of Agreement among thAmtrak, SHPO and the California DepartTransportation. CR-1 Stipulations in the MOA for archaeresources would address: • How and when archaeological resourceidentified and evaluated; • How impacts to significant resources w• How significant resources will be treated unavoidable impacts; • Who will participate in consultation durin

and • How the consultation will be undertakenCR-2 Prior to construction, FRA and the Department of Transportation will prepararcheological testing and evaluation plan areas within the archaeological APE moscontain buried cultural resources. A NatiBurial Agreement will be prepared as pa(see CR-5 below). This Burial Agreemenall discoveries of Native American remainthe Project. In order to achieve Section 106 and Ccompliance, a combined program of exarchival research and subsurface test hazardous materials conditions allow) 
Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 

Actions to Reduce Impacts 

Potential Environmental 

Impacts for Build Alternatives 

Significance 

Determination Regulatory Requirements Proposed Mitigation Meas

Archaeology, continued conducted to ensure that the Run-Thro

Project will identify and evaluate signifarchaeological resources. This prograsite-specific archival research to aid in target areas that may contain potentiaprehistoric, protohistoric, and historicaarchaeological resources. Archival resresult in a research design and work pthe physical identification of intact subarchaeological remains. Prior to constII archeological testing will be conductmost likely to contain buried cultural reCR-3 If resources are discovered durtesting prior to construction, they will bfor significance with criteria set forth in plan. Initial studies should be directed evaluation of site significance per crite36 CFR 60.4 to assess the site’s eligibinclusion in the NRHP. To achieve thiarchaeological testing strategy (if hazamaterials conditions permit) that balanof data potentials and realization of thowould be used. These investigations wdesigned to (1) define the extent, contage, occupation units or components, potentials of each site, (2) define spatiand cultural relationships among sites near the study area; (3) advance knowand regional history and prehistory by explicit research questions; (4) assess Projects effects if a cultural property pfor the NRHP; and (5) define key paraextent, structure, age, contents, and ineach site sufficiently to define a treatm
Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 

Actions to Reduce Impacts 

Potential Environmental 

Impacts for Build Alternatives 

Significance 

Determination Regulatory Requirements Proposed Mitigation Meas

Archaeology, continued CR-4 If significant archaeological dep

during test excavations prior to construmitigation plan will be developed to enimportant archaeological data are not mitigation plan will include methods by prehistoric, protohistoric, and historicaarchaeological deposits will be avoided prior to construction. Specific provisiomade for the analysis of artifacts, repoand dissemination, and curation and dartifacts consistent with the National PGuidelines (36 CFR 49). Impacts to significant finds will be mitiga data-recovery program using approparchaeological field and laboratory me(hazardous materials conditions permipursuant to the Secretary of Interior’s SGuidelines (48 FR 44716-44742). Sinwould involve significant excavation, thtimeline must accommodate a time priconstruction to allow for identification aof cultural resources, and for full recovsignificant subsurface resources that waffected by the Project. Subsequent monitoring following Phasrecovery may be necessary during condemonstrated on the other urban Los Aproject some resources may be buried historic surfaces and defy discovery unProject construction. Because Native concerns have been established, addimonitoring may be warranted. This mfollow the procedures outlined in CR-6 
Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 

Actions to Reduce Impacts 

Potential Environmental 

Impacts for Build Alternatives 

Significance 

Determination Regulatory Requirements Proposed Mitigation Meas

Archaeology, continued CR-5 Prior to pre-construction testing

and construction, a Native American BAgreement to recover and respectfully remains will be developed in accordanlegal requirements, and in consultation agencies, the SHPO, and a Most LikelIf human remains are encountered durarchaeological excavation or during coexcavation or disturbance of the site oarea reasonably suspected to overlie hremains will stop. If human remains are exposed during State Health and Safety Code Section that no further disturbance shall occur County Coroner has made the necessto origin and disposition pursuant to PResources Code 5097.98. Constructiothe area of the discovery of human remwill be protected, and consultation and occur as prescribed by law. Cultural Resources Identification, EvalMitigation During Construction: CR-6 Because additional unrecorded unanticipated archaeological deposits, Native American or other human remato be encountered during constructionconstruction will occur, unless the preshazardous materials precludes monitoAmerican monitoring will also take placrequested by interested Native AmericPrior to construction, a Project TreatmHistoric Properties Discovered During Implementation will be prepared as an 
Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 

Actions to Reduce Impacts 

Potential Environmental 

Impacts for Build Alternatives 

Significance 

Determination Regulatory Requirements Proposed Mitigation Meas

Archaeology, continued the MOA, outlining the process by whi

resolve any adverse effects upon newhistoric properties during the implemenUnion Station Run-Through Tracks Proto 36 CFR 800.13(a)(2). The Treatmedetail where monitoring will take placeprocedures, and procedures to be folloresources are discovered. Types of resources likely to be found, and historical archaeological research relevant to site significance, research qdata requirements will be detailed. Thoptions for each historic property class procedures for implementing treatmen

spelled out. Procedures for curation orecovered during site treatment and rerequirements will be addressed. FinalAmerican Burial Agreement will be preof this Treatment Plan (see CR-5). 

Historic Properties Both Build Alternatives: No 

adverse/significant impacts would occur to known historic properties because project changes would not affect character-defining features. 

Not Adverse (NEPA) Not significant (CEQA) 

National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106. 

None required. However, a MemorandAgreement will be developed among FDepartment of Transportation, Amtrakand to provide mechanisms so that furdevelopment minimizes harm to historLAUS), primarily through treatment, decomment, and design revision. 
Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 

Actions to Reduce Impacts 

Potential Environmental 

Impacts for Build Alternatives 

Significance 

Determination Regulatory Requirements Proposed Mitigation Meas

Paleontological Resources Both Build Alternatives: No longterm impacts. Potentially significant impact if unique paleontological artifacts are encountered during construction 

Potentially Adverse (NEPA) Potentially Significant (CEQA) 

No regulatory requirements. Although no known resources were ide

area, the following measures shall be during construction: P-1 A qualified paleontologist will monexcavation spoils and surface excavatexcavations reaching into older depos(Pleistocene older alluvium or the FernFormation) are likely to yield such resodepths of sensitive deposits and/or arein the project area will be identified alolocations prior to development of the cspecifications. Monitoring may be redpotentially fossiliferous units are determexposure and examination by a qualifipaleontologist to have a low potential tfossil resources. P-2 Paleontologic monitors shall be esalvage fossils as they are brought to Monitors shall be empowered to tempoconstruction or divert equipment to facof larger specimens, if applicable. P-3 Recovered intact specimens shalto a point of identification and permanepreservation, including washing of sedrecover small invertebrates and vertebP-4 Intact specimens shall be identifieinto a museum repository with permanstorage. P-5 A finding report will be prepared wappended itemized inventory of specimreport and inventory would signify comprogram to mitigate impacts to paleontresources. 
Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 

Actions to Reduce Impacts 

Potential Environmental 

Impacts for Build Alternatives 

Significance 

Determination Regulatory Requirements Proposed Mitigation Meas

Section 3-6 – Energy (NEPA Only)Fuel Consumption Both Build Alternatives:Construction-period vehicle fuel consumption would not result in an adverse impact to energy resources. 

Not Adverse (NEPA) (CEQA does not apply) 

Requirements for implementation of regular equipment maintenance are typically contained in Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) (required under Clean Water Act Section 402) Best Management Practices (BMPs). 

No additional mitigation measures are 

Vehicle Trips Both Build Alternatives: Long term, 

the project would result in a reduction in vehicle trips, saving 34,428 gallons per day of petroleum fuel. 

Beneficial (NEPA) (CEQA does not apply) 

No regulatory requirements. No mitigation measures are required 

Need for New Infrastructure Both Build Alternatives: Additional 

demand for operations would not require new infrastructure to produce or deliver electricity and gas to the region.

Not Adverse (NEPA) (CEQA does not apply) 

The project will incorporate energy conservation features in the design of the station modifications and track control and signal systems that will comply with applicable codes and regulations. 

No additional mitigation measures are 

Section 3-7 – Executive Orders (NEPA Only)Executive Order Conflicts Both Build Alternatives:Construction and operation of the proposed project would not conflict with any Executive Orders. 

Not Adverse (NEPA) (CEQA does not apply) 

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management; Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands; Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations; Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species. 

No additional mitigation measures are 
Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 

Actions to Reduce Impacts 

Potential Environmental 

Impacts for Build Alternatives 

Significance 

Determination Regulatory Requirements Proposed Mitigation Meas

Section 3-8 – Geologic/SeismicUnstable Slopes Both Build Alternatives: Unstable temporary slopes during construction would be a potentially significant impact. 

Potentially Adverse (NEPA) Potentially Significant (CEQA) 

All earthwork and grading must comply with State of California codes. All excavation and shoring systems would meet the minimum requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards. 

No additional mitigation measures are 

Accelerated Erosion Both Build Alternatives: Accelerated erosion during construction would be a potentially significant impact. 

Potentially Adverse (NEPA) Potentially Significant (CEQA) 

Erosion control during site construction is regulated and requires application of Best Management Practices. Construction industry standard storm water BMPs are provided in the State of California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbook, Construction Activity. 

No additional mitigation measures are 

Contaminated Soil or Groundwater Both Build Alternatives: Excavations for foundation footings and piles may encounter contaminated soils or groundwater, which would result in a potentially adverse (significant) impact. 

Potentially Adverse (NEPA) Potentially Significant (CEQA) 

If contaminated groundwater or soil were encountered at the site, it would be handled in accordance with applicable state and federal regulations. 

No additional mitigation measures are 

Subsurface Gas Both Build Alternatives: Excavations for foundation footings and piles may encounter shallow subsurface gas. If shallow subsurface gas is present within the proposed project site, a potentially significant or adverse impact would result. 

Potentially Adverse (NEPA) Potentially Significant (CEQA) 

OSHA regulations cover potential worker exposure to subsurface gases during construction. 

No additional mitigation measures are 
Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 

Actions to Reduce Impacts 

Potential Environmental 

Impacts for Build Alternatives 

Significance 

Determination Regulatory Requirements Proposed Mitigation Meas

Abandoned Oil Wells Both Build Alternatives: If undocumented abandoned oil wells or dry holes are encountered during excavation or grading activities, a significant or adverse impact would result. 

Potentially Adverse (NEPA) Potentially Significant (CEQA) 

The City of Los Angeles and Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) regulate construction activities over or near abandoned wells and dry holes. Wells and dry holes under or in close proximity to construction must be plugged and abandoned in accordance with current DOGGR regulations. By conforming to existing state and city requirements, adverse (under NEPA)/significant (under CEQA) impacts associated with abandoned wells or dry holes are not anticipated. 

No additional mitigation measures are 

Settlement or Subsidence Both Build Alternatives: The proposed project would increase loads placed on existing underlying earth materials. Settlement or subsidence caused by additional loads represents a potential adverse (significant) impact 

Potentially Adverse (NEPA) Potentially Significant (CEQA) 

No regulatory requirements. GE-1 During Final Design, project des

evaluate potential subsidence or settleby additional loads from fill and retainiespecially when trains are present. Fidesign will ensure that site subsidence does not result in impacts to adjacent order to evaluate these issues, a final report shall be prepared before final deproposed structures, and recommendain this report shall be implemented, as 

Section 3-9 – Hazardous MaterialsExposure to Hazardous Materials Both Build Alternatives: Potentially adverse (significant) impacts from the removal, handling, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials during construction and operation. 

Potentially Adverse (NEPA) Potentially Significant (CEQA) 

Consultations with the City of Los Angeles Fire Department, State Department of Toxic Substance Control, and Regional Water Quality Control Board, and compliance with stipulated local and state regulations and regulated and/or permitted construction requirements will minimize potential 

No additional mitigation measures are 
Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 

Actions to Reduce Impacts 

Potential Environmental 

Impacts for Build Alternatives 

Significance 

Determination Regulatory Requirements Proposed Mitigation Meas

Hazardous Materials, continued for hazardous materials impacts resulting 

from removal of hazardous materials during construction. A Health and Safety Plan will be developed to guide all construction activities. The health and safety plan will meet the requirements of 29 CFR 1910 and all other applicable federal, state, and local regulations and requirements. Removal of aboveground and underground storage tanks within the proposed project corridor, if present, may be required by the Los Angeles City Fire Department. All procedures for removing tanks, including sampling procedures, must be in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations. If an unexpected release of hazardous substances is found in reportable quantities, the National Response Center must be notified and clean-up coordinated with environmental agencies. Potential exposure of construction workers to asbestos contaminated materials (ACM) shall be minimized through disclosure of the potential presence of ACM’s for demolition and renovation of structures that were constructed prior to 1979. Asbestos sampling surveys shall be conducted on any building material prior to demolition or renovation. 
Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 

Actions to Reduce Impacts 

Potential Environmental 

Impacts for Build Alternatives 

Significance 

Determination Regulatory Requirements Proposed Mitigation Meas

Hazardous Materials, continued Prior to demolition or renovation of buildings 

or structures that were constructed prior to 1979, the project contractor shall prepare an Operations and Maintenance Plan that meets all applicable federal, state, and local requirements. Potential exposure of construction workers to lead based paint (LBP) shall be minimized through disclosure of the potential presence of LBP for demolition and renovation of structures located within the proposed alignment that were constructed prior to 1979. Prior to any demolition or renovation to be conducted on any painted surfaces at the project site, a LBP survey shall be conducted by the contractor to determine the level of risk posed to construction personnel from exposure to the paints present at the site. Groundwater sampling surveys for contaminants in concentrations above accepted state and federal regulatory levels shall be conducted prior to the commencement of pylon, abutment, and other intrusive construction activities that will be expected to contact groundwater. If a temporary fuel tank is used during construction, it will be stored within a 
Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 

Actions to Reduce Impacts 

Potential Environmental 

Impacts for Build Alternatives 

Significance 

Determination Regulatory Requirements Proposed Mitigation Meas

Hazardous Materials, continued bermed and sealed secondary containment 

structure. A Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measure (SPCC) plan will be will be prepared and enforced to ensure that any spills are contained and properly disposed of. 

Section 3-10 – Land Use and Planning Land Use and Planning Both Build Alternatives: No longterm or short-tem adverse (significant) impacts on land use and planning in the project area. 

Not Adverse (NEPA) Not Significant (CEQA) 

No regulatory requirements. No mitigation measures required 

Section 3-11 – Noise and VibrationConstruction Noise Alternative A: Construction 

activities could result in potentially adverse (significant) noise impacts. 

Potentially Adverse (NEPA) Potentially Significant (CEQA) 

Construction of the proposed project would be in voluntary compliance with the requirements of Sections 112.03 and 41.40 of the City of Los Angeles Municipal Code and any variances to the Code issued by the City, which will reduce impacts to not adverse/not significant. 

No additional mitigation measures req

Operational Noise Alternative A: Operation of this alternative would result in potentially adverse (significant) noise impacts to a residential loft at 611 Ducommun. Alternative A-1: This alternative is located about 1 block farther north than Alternative A and would not create any noise impacts. 

Potentially Adverse (NEPA) Potentially Significant (CEQA) 

All Amtrak and Metrolink trains are required to comply with EPA noise standards for locomotives and railroad cars as outlined in 40 CFR Part 201. Note that City of Los Angeles regulations do not apply. 

If the Alternative A alignment is selecteimplementation, during Final Design a of measures, such as noise barriers on rail structure, and/or sound insulation fside of the building shall be developed
Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 

Actions to Reduce Impacts 

Potential Environmental 

Impacts for Build Alternatives 

Significance 

Determination Regulatory Requirements Proposed Mitigation Meas

Section 3-12 – Railroad Operations (NEPA Only)Operations and Schedule Both Build Alternatives: Proposed 

alternatives would improve station operations and schedule reliability. 

Beneficial (NEPA) (CEQA does not apply) 

No regulatory requirements. No mitigation measures are required 

Section 3-13 – Safety and Security (NEPA Only)Construction Both Build Alternatives: No adverse (significant) safety and security impacts during construction 

Not Adverse (NEPA) (CEQA does not apply) 

The Contract Documents and the Contractor’s Site-Specific Safety Plan would be used to create a safe working environment for construction employees and to protect the public from harm. 

No additional mitigation measures are 

Operation Both Build Alternatives: No longterm adverse (significant) safety 

and security impacts resulting from operation 

Not Adverse (NEPA) (CEQA does not apply) 

Future operations would continue to implement FRA rules and regulations for active track transportation of passengers and rail car/engine safety outlined under CFR, Part 216 to 238. The project would also comply with safety regulations and prevention guidelines established under the Amtrak Emergency Action Plan. Both plans would be revised to meet the emergency needs associated with the addition of a run-through track segment, including a special circumstances section as defined by Title 49 CFR, Part 239. 

No additional mitigation measures are 
Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 

Actions to Reduce Impacts 

Potential Environmental 

Impacts for Build Alternatives 

Significance 

Determination Regulatory Requirements Proposed Mitigation Meas

Section 3-14 – Population, Housing, and EmploymentResidential Displacements Both Build Alternatives: No 

residential displacements would be required. Thus, no adverse (significant) impact would result. 

Not Adverse (NEPA) Not Significant (CEQA) 

No regulatory requirements. No mitigation measures are required 

Business Acquisitions Alternative A: One warehouse, one surface pay parking lot, all or a portion of an automobile impound lot, and all or a portion of a vacant lot would be acquired. The business operations at these would be displaced. 

Potentially Adverse (NEPA) Potentially Significant (CEQA) 

Purchases would be at fair market value. Relocation assistance would be provided in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Properties Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, section 6018 of the Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Guidelines (California Code of Regulations), and the provisions of the California Relocation Act (Government Code sections 7260-7277). 

No mitigation measures are required 

Business Acquisitions Alternative A-1: Two occupied business locations: 801 Commercial Street and all or part the automobile impound lot at 500 Center Street would be acquired. The business operations at these would be displaced. A vacant lot with no businesses would also be acquired. 

Potentially Adverse (NEPA) Potentially Significant (CEQA) 

Purchases would be at fair market value. Relocation assistance would be provided in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Properties Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, section 6018 of the Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Guidelines (California Code of Regulations), and the provisions of the California Relocation Act (Government Code sections 7260-7277). 

No mitigation measures are required 

Other Impacts Both Build Alternatives: No longterm access disruptions, neighborhood barriers, unplanned growth, or environmental justice impacts would result. 

Not Adverse (NEPA) Not Significant (CEQA) 

No regulatory requirements. No mitigation measures are required 
Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 

Actions to Reduce Impacts 

Potential Environmental 

Impacts for Build Alternatives 

Significance 

Determination Regulatory Requirements Proposed Mitigation Meas

Section 3-15 – Traffic and TransportationVehicle Round Trips Both Build Alternatives: Future 

operation reduces over 11,000 vehicle round trips per day trip.

Beneficial (NEPA) Beneficial (CEQA) 

No regulatory requirements. No mitigation measures are required 

Study Intersections Both Build Alternatives: Construction and operation would have minimal effect on study intersections in the vicinity.

Not Adverse (NEPA) Not Significant (CEQA) 

No regulatory requirements. No mitigation measures are required. 

consultation with LADOT will occur to Traffic Management Program, to includdetour plans for any street or sidewalk would occur during construction 

Bridge Over U.S. 101 Both Build Alternatives: Building the railroad bridge over U.S. 101 could have significant (CEQA) impacts during construction period. Temporary impacts would not be adverse under NEPA. 

Not Adverse (NEPA) Potentially Significant (CEQA) 

No regulatory requirements. TR-1 A Traffic Management Program 

developed in consultation with the CalDepartment of Transportation, to inclulimited lane closures and traffic detour

Relocation of Mail Operations Both Build Alternatives: Relocating Amtrak’s mail and express operations to Redondo Junction would not result in an adverse (significant) impact due to the limited number of trucks affected.

Not Adverse (NEPA) Not Significant (CEQA) 

No regulatory requirements. No mitigation measures are required 
Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 

Actions to Reduce Impacts 

Potential Environmental 

Impacts for Build Alternatives 

Significance 

Determination Regulatory Requirements Proposed Mitigation Meas

Transportation and Circulation Both Build Alternatives: Positive 

effect on transportation and circulation at Union Station, with little additional vehicle traffic in the vicinity. 

Beneficial (NEPA) Beneficial (CEQA) 

No regulatory requirements. No mitigation measures are required 

On-Street Parking Alternative A: No loss of on-street parking. Alternative A-1: Loss of 3 on-street parking spaces on Commercial St. 

Not Adverse (NEPA) Not Significant (CEQA) 

No regulatory requirements. No mitigation measures are required 

Section 3-16 – Utility Disruptions and RelocationsUtility Line Relocations Both Build Alternatives: Limited to relocation of lines intersected by the proposed alignments. Service interruptions during the relocations would be temporary and shortterm. 

Not Adverse (NEPA) Less than Significant (CEQA) 

A Utility Relocation Plan would be developed in accordance with policies and practices established by the State, the City of Los Angeles, and the utility companies. 

No mitigation measures are required 

Section 3-17 – Visual ImpactsVisual Resources Both Build Alternatives: No visual 

resources would be adversely (significantly) affected. 

Not Adverse (NEPA) Not Significant (CEQA) 

No regulatory requirements. No mitigation measures are required 
Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 

Actions to Reduce Impacts 

Potential Environmental 

Impacts for Build Alternatives 

Significance 

Determination Regulatory Requirements Proposed Mitigation Meas

Section 3-18 – Hydrology and Water Existing Drainage Patterns Both Build Alternatives: Would not 

substantially alter existing drainage patterns and would not increase flows. 

Not Adverse (NEPA) Not Significant (CEQA) 

No regulatory requirements. No mitigation measures are required 

Erosion and Water Quality Both Build Alternatives: Potential temporary increases in erosion and degradation of water quality during construction. 

Potentially Adverse (NEPA) Potentially Significant (CEQA) 

Clean Water Act. A NPDES General Permit with construction BMPs would be obtained per Water Quality Order 99-08-DWQ. A Los Angeles County Municipal Storm Water permit with operational BMPs would also be obtained. 

No mitigation measures are required 

100-Year Floodplain Both Build Alternatives: Not within 

a 100-year floodplain. 

Not Adverse (NEPA) Not Significant (CEQA) 

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management 

No mitigation measures are required. 
Executive Summary 

page ES-42

ES-5.1 Agency Approvals and Permits

The following agencies may use the EIR/EIS in the event that permits or discretionary approvals 

from these agencies are required for the proposed project:

California Department of Fish & Game

California Department of Toxic Substances Control

California Department of Transportation

California Public Utilities Commission

California Transportation Commission

City of Los Angeles, all departments and authorities

County of Los Angeles, all departments and authorities

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board

South Coast Air Quality Management District

Southern California Regional Rail Authority 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

ES-5.2 Intended Use of an EIR

Under CEQA, the EIR and the information contained herein will used by the California 

Department of Transportation, as the Lead Agency, in deciding whether, or under what 

conditions, to approve the proposed project. The information in this EIR will also be used by 

other agencies that have a responsibility under CEQA, which may include issues related to this 

project. 

CEQA Responsible Agencies:

California Department of Fish & Game

California Department of Toxic Substances Control

California Public Utilities Commission

California Transportation Commission

City of Los Angeles, all departments and boards

County of Los Angeles, all departments and boards

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board

South Coast Air Quality Management District

Southern California Regional Rail Authority.

ES-6 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND COMMENT 

Please see Chapter 7, Public Outreach, for a complete discussion of public outreach efforts.

ES-6.1 Scoping Meeting Notifications 

Notice of the two public Scoping workshops were provided by: 
Executive Summary 

page ES-43

• posting the NOI in the Federal Register 

• filing the NOP with the State Clearinghouse and Los Angeles County Clerk 

• mailing the NOP to responsible and trustee public agencies 

• publishing notices of the Scoping meeting in newspapers of general circulation 

• publishing notices of the Scoping meeting in non-English newspapers (Japanese, Spanish and 

Mandarin Chinese.) 

• mailing the NOP to organizations and individuals known or assumed to be interested in the 

proposed project 

• mailing the NOP or Scoping Notice to residents, businesses and institutions in the study area 

ES-6.2 Community Meetings 

Community meetings have been held to apprise particular interest groups about the proposed 

project and to provide information on the development of alternatives. Prior to each community 

meeting, the project team placed newspaper advertisements in the abovementioned newspapers. 

Advertisements generally ran 2 to 3 weeks prior to the meeting date. Mailings were made to all 

addresses within the study area, as well as postcard notifications to individuals previously listed 

in the project database. At each meeting, attendees were added to the project database so that 

they would receive future notifications. The community meetings included: 

 October 9, 2002 – Progress Briefing No. 1. This update meeting presented the project 

description, purpose and need; an introduction and explanation of the alternative analysis 

and screening process; information regarding proposed modifications to Los Angeles 

Union Station; a multimedia modeling presentation; the project schedule; the 

environmental process description; and information regarding the project’s next steps. 

 January 28, 2003 – Little Tokyo Neighborhood Council. This meeting presented the 

same information as Progress Briefing No. 1. 

 January 29, 2003 – Los Angles River Arts and Business Association. This meeting 

presented the same information as Progress Briefing No. 1. 

 March 5, 2003 – Progress Briefing No. 2. In addition to the newspaper notices, certified 

letters were sent to those who lived or own property within 5 miles of the project area. 

Three days prior to the meeting, reminders were sent via electronic mail to those listed in 

the project database. This meeting presented the results of the screening process; 

recommended Alignment A; proposed station modifications; preliminary cost estimates 

for the project; and an overall project timeline. The alignment evaluation matrix was 

presented, detailing how the screening criteria were applied to result in an alignment 

recommendation. 
Executive Summary 

page ES-44

 April 9, 2003 – William Mead Homes. Residents of this public housing property were 

presented the same information as Progress Briefing No. 2. 

Website: A project website www.runthroughtracks.org, became available for public access in 

May 2002. The website has been accessed by the community over 10,000 times. 

ES-6.3 Draft EIR/EIS Public Meetings 

The next round of public meetings will occur during the 45-day circulation period of the Draft 

EIR/EIS. Notification of the availability of the Draft EIR/EIS and public information 

workshops/public hearings will follow the same procedures previously used:

• newspaper advertisements in 4 local newspapers,

• mailings to all parties in the project database, and

• posting of the meeting notice on the project website.

In addition to placement in area libraries, the DEIS/DEIR will be available for downloading from 

the project website.

The public hearing will be held on October 13, 2004, from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. at the MTA Building, 

1 Gateway Plaza, 3rd Floor Conference Room, Los Angeles, CA, 90012. 

The NEPA public review period began with the publication of the Notice of Availability in the 

Federal Register on Friday, September 10, 2004. The CEQA public review period began with 

the posting of the Notice of Availability at the Los Angeles County Clerk on September 3, 2004, 

and the receipt of the Notice of Completion at the State of California, Governor’s Office of 

Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, on Friday, September 9, 2004. 

Newspaper advertisements noticing the public hearing and the availability of the Draft EIR/EIS 

were published on two separate occasions in the following five newspapers: Downtown News, 

Rafu Shimpo, Chinese Daily News, La Opinion, Los Angeles Times. The first printing occurred 

within all five of the above newspapers between the dates of September 6 and 10, 2004. It 

announced the proposed project and the beginning of the public review period. The second 

printing occurred between October 4 and 8, 2004. It reminded the public of the upcoming public 

hearing.

ES-6.3.1 Availability of the Draft EIR/EIS

Copies of the document were mailed to responsible and trustee agencies and to those who had 

previously requested a copy of the document. An electronic copy of the document was placed on 

the project website, www.runthroughtracks.org, and physical copies of the document were 

placed in the following locations: 

• Benjamin Franklin Library, 2200 E. 1st Street, Los Angeles, CA, 90033

• Chinatown Branch Library, 639 N. Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA, 90012 
Executive Summary 

page ES-45

• Los Angeles Public Library Science Department, 630 W. 5th Street, 

Los Angeles, CA, 90071

• Little Tokyo Library, 244 S. Alameda Street, Los Angeles, CA, 90012

• California Department of Transportation, 120 Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012.

Any property owner who would be potentially affected by the proposed project was notified of this 

via posting of the Notice of Availability at the Los Angeles County Clerk, the newspaper 

advertising, and the mailing distribution of the Draft EIR/EIS. Personal delivery of the document 

(by the public outreach consultant) to any businesses that would directly be affected by the 

proposed project occurred on October 6, 2004. Specifically, four complete sets of documents were 

hand delivered to the Los Angeles Police Department, Property Division; Viertel’s Automotive 

Service; Mrs. Friday’s-Fishking Processors, Inc.; and B &Z Investments, Inc. 

All persons on the project mailing list received Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR/EIS. The 

project mailing list was developed over the course of the project and includes persons notified of or 

responding to scoping, attendees at public information meetings, and those who asked to be added 

to the mailing list via the project website or other correspondence. (See Table 7-1, Draft EIR/EIS 

Distribution List, and Table 27-2, Draft EIR/EIS Notice of Availability Distribution List.)

ES-6.3.2 Commenting on the Draft EIR/EIS

Comments on the Draft EIR/EIS were accepted via the project website; in writing via fax, email 

or mail; by phone; and at the public hearing (oral and written). The FRA and the Department 

held a public hearing near the project location. It was on October 13, 2004, from 4 p.m. to 8 

p.m. at the MTA Building, 1 Gateway Plaza, 3rd Floor Conference Room, Los Angeles, CA, 

90012. 

The close of the comment period was close of business on October 25, 2004.

Comments were submitted in the following manner:

• in writing, mailed to the persons named below;

• in writing at the public hearing;

• to a court reporter at the public hearing;

• via email at the project Internet website, www.runthroughtracks.org; 

Comments were addressed to either (or both) of the following persons:

• David Valenstein, Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont St. NW, 

MS-20, Washington, D.C. 20590.

• Gary Iverson, California Department of Transportation District 7, 120 Spring 

Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012.
Executive Summary 

page ES-46

All comments received were considered, and responses to substantive comments were addressed 

in Chapter 12, Comments and Responses. Chapter 11, Clarifications and Modifications, 

indicates where corresponding edits or corrections to the Draft EIR/EIS were made in response 

to the comments received. 

ES-7 MATTERS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA

ES-7.1 Areas of Controversy

Comments received during the course of scoping were focused on: 

• How potential alignments would affect individual properties and business operations in 

the study area. 

• How potential alignments would interface with, and avoid conflict with, the MTA 

Eastside LRT Extension project.

To address these concerns, numerous potential alignments were developed and assessed in an 

Alternatives Analysis process, as outlined in Section ES-3.1 above. 

During the agency and public comment period for the Draft EIR/EIS, comments focused on the 

following issues:

• Determining the impact of the alignment of Alternative A on a site within that alignment 

that was approved for development subsequent to completion of the analysis reported in 

the Draft EIR/EIS. This concern was addressed by selection of Alternative A-1 as the 

Locally Preferred Alternative, since the Alternative A-1 alignment would avoid the 

property on which construction of the new business was approved by the City of 

Los Angeles.

• Ensuring the assimilation of proposed changes at Union Station with the operation of the 

station and the south end of the proposed new “S-curve” tracks into the mainline tracks, 

respectively. These issues were addressed by the conceptual designs presented in the 

Draft EIR/EIS. Responses to address specific comments are shown in Chapter 12.

• Clarifying air quality assumptions, impacts, and mitigation measures. These issues were 

largely addressed in the air quality impact analysis in the Draft EIR/EIS. Responses to 

address specific comments are shown in Chapter 12. Mitigation measures have been 

edited to include some of the suggested measures by the commenting agencies. The 

results of the edited measures do not change the analysis of the significance of impacts 

after mitigation that was stated in the Draft EIR/EIS: Under CEQA, there would still be 

significant air quality impacts during the construction period and long term.

• Avoiding impacts to local streets, especially a potential realignment of Commercial Street 

reported in the Draft EIR/EIS for Alternative A-1. The response to comment in Chapter 

12 indicates that the initial design could be refined during subsequent design phases to 

perhaps avoid the need for realignment. Under the initial design, there was no reported 
Executive Summary 

page ES-47

change in Level of Service (LOS) at nearby street intersections; a potential design 

revision would also not be expected to result in a change in LOS.

ES-7.2 Issues to Be Resolved

The California Department of Transportation will need to complete the following actions to 

complete the CEQA process:

1. Issuance of the Final EIR/EIS to all agencies and persons that provided comments on the 

Draft EIR/EIS.

2. Certification of the EIR

3. Approval of a project, to include (a) consideration of environmental impacts, (b) 

conditions under which the project is approved, (c) adoption of statements of finding and of 

overriding considerations, (d) adoption of a mitigation and monitoring reporting programs, 

and (e) filing Notices of Completion and Notice of Determination. The project to be 

approved is assumed to be Alternative A-1 or a variation of Alternative A-1.

Other matters to be resolved are: 

(a) identification of funds to refine/complete design for acquisition of property and 

displacement of businesses and for construction; 

(b) (b) ongoing consultation with Catellus Corporation (owner of Union Station), the 

Southern California Regional Rail Authority (operator of the commuter rail service 

within Union Station), Amtrak (operator of the intracity rail service within Union 

Station), Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (owner of the SCRRA 

mainline tracks), and the BNSF Railway Company (operator of the freight service over 

the SCRRA mainline tracks and adjoining tracks) regarding the aforementioned design 

process; and 

(c) consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer to develop a Memorandum of 

Agreement to include proposed mitigation measures for archeological resources and 

ensure that the design process does not have an adverse effect on Union Station .